Evaluating Russia’s INDC
As a country that is currently the third largest greenhouse gas emitter per capita and historically responsible for 8% of global carbon dioxide emissions since 1850, Russia is rightfully seen as one of the key players in this week’s conference. Indeed, Russia was one of the first countries to publicize its climate action plan, submitting its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) in early April of 2015, before all but six of the 190+ countries participating in COP21. Unfortunately, the commitments outlined within this INDC were disappointingly lackluster.
In fact, the centerpiece of the entire Russian INDC, a proposed cap of greenhouse gas emissions at 70%-75% of the country’s 1990 levels by 2030, is framed not as a commitment, but instead as “a long-term indicator.” This goal, rated “inadequate” by Climate Action Tracker, is further lessened by the qualifier that the most generous predictions of forest absorbing capacity will be used in their calculations. Many INDCs employ similar terminology, using best-case models to allow for extra wiggle-room in meeting their commitments. The most concerning aspect of Russia’s INDC is the use of 1990 as the baseline.
Russia in 1990 looked very different than it does today. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia’s greenhouse gas emissions dropped rapidly in the early 1990s. Even with emissions steadily rising in the years since, current emissions are still just 68% of 1990 levels, allowing the country to meet their stated goal while continuing to increase carbon emissions. Many experts, both within Russia and abroad, fear that the deliberately vague estimates of the forest impact may allow Russia to significantly increase emissions until 2030, potentially peaking at 50% above current levels.
While disappointing, Russia’s unambitious climate plan is ultimately unsurprising. Encouraged by President Vladimir Putin and his public skepticism of anthropogenic climate change, Russian media and schools downplay the dangers that a warming earth may bring. This denial is largely driven by economics; the world’s largest gas reserves are found in the country, and many studies, such as this Oxfam Research Report, “Economic Analysis of the Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture in Russia,” have found Russia to be one of the few countries where agriculture would be improved by warmer surface temperatures. Many Russian officials are more reluctant to cite the other major conclusion of the Oxfam Report: the projected increase in storms and extreme weather events due to climate change will cancel any benefit coming from warmer temperatures, resulting in a net decrease in agricultural production.
Even if increased warming and a continued dependence on fossil fuels were to benefit Russia economically, global warming will endanger the lives and livelihoods of many people and communities worldwide. Just as Russia’s INDC acknowledges, the COP21 goal of limiting warming from reaching dangerous levels “can be achieved with efforts of all Parties of the future climate agreement.” Hopefully the Russian delegation will act on this during the negotiations, pledging a stronger effort from their country for the sake of a global agreement.
